The judgment establishes the application of circumstantial evidence and the presumption under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act in proving guilt in a murder case.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

Challenge is made to the judgement of the learned Principal Sessions Division, Salem, made in S.C.No.136 of 2002 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged tried and found guilty under section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(a) P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased Sumathi aged 15 years. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.3 a boy aged 9 years, was residing with his parents in the neighbour house of the deceased. P.W.4 was conducted a petti shop nearby the house of the accused. The accused is the father of the deceased. He was a drunkard and was carrying on a wayward life. A few months prior to the occurrence, he pledged M.O.3, Videocon TV and other things with P.W.6. The accused did not heed to the advise made by the others. He continued to carry on the said activities.

(b) On 21. 2002, P.W.2 went to S.Palam for attending his coolie work . P.W.1 who went to weaving work and came back at 4.00 p.m. and went to witness panchayat TV and was there till night hours. At that time, the deceased Sumathi was alone in the house. She requested P.W.3, a neighbour boy to come and sleep with her. Accordingly, P.W.3 came to the house of Sumathi and was sleeping with her. At about 10.00 p.m, P.W.9 a neighbour found the accused entering the house of the deceased. P.W.3 saw Sumathi entering into the other room of the house and within a short span of time, he heard the distress cry of Sumathi. Due to fear, P.W.3 ran away to his house. P.W.9 noticed the accused coming out of the house after some time.

(c) When P.W.4 was in her petty shop, the accused went to her shop and purchased beedi. At that time, the accused informed P.W.4 that there was a death in his house and she would enquire about the same. So saying, he left the place. P.w.1 returned to the house at about 11.00 p.m. and went to bed. At about 4.00 a.m., he noticed the accused who came to the house and after some time, he saw him leaving the house. P.W.1 had nothing to entertain suspicion. At about 6.30 a.m., When he woke up, Sumathi did not raise from bed. Then, he went near her and found her dead with injuries on the neck. Immediately, he informed to the neighbours. P.W.2 was also informed.

(d) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.13 Inspector of Police. The case was registered in Crime No.92/2002 under section 302 IPC. The FIR, Ex.P10 was despatched to Court. P.W.13 took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and drew a rough sketch ex.P11. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report, Ex.P12 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars. Following the same, the dead body was sent for the purpose of post mortem.

(e) P.W.8 doctor attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sumathi and gave his opinion through the contents of post mortem certificate, Ex.P6 and also as witness before the Court that the deceased died out of asphyxia due to strangulation on the neck.

(f) Pending investigation, on 21. 2002, the accused was arrested. He gave the confessional statement voluntarily in the presence of the witnesses and the same was recorded. The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P13. Following the same, he took the investigator to P.W.5 from whom M.O.1 Silver anklet was recovered. He also took them to P.W.6 from whom the T.V. and other things which were pledged by the accused earlier were recovered. Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the department and the reports were received and placed before the Court. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.

(g) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substanti